7 Responses

Dear Aaron, this is indeed a too little studied subfield for which one need to be careful about dates and sources. The Roche thesis was only an exploratory and rather descriptive beginning of studying imaginary arms (a rather good definition is given for analytical purposes), and it needs careful consideration for anybody working with such arms and their occurrence in armorials, decorations, chronicles and fictional literature.
Though imaginary arms can be found in at least 13C sources, it appears to me that it was only in the beginning of the 15C, that imaginary arms really became popular – and armorists began compiling lists, which were eventually reused for centuries. There are instances where different authors or compilers of arms made them up by themselves as the need arose (e.g. the sons of Aimon or Nine Worthies), but once a list became available, it spread out very fast (viz. knights of the Table Ronde and reuse of the Richental chronicle of Constance- if that was the ‘original’ source). We can find the same set of imaginary arms in armorials, that otherwise appear to be independent, though one needs to assess whether a later copyist may have appended such a segment to his source by himself. There are different traditions in the major linguistic territories (England, France, Germany), but also recurrent themes, most when there is an obvious allegorial or canting hint (e.g. Charlemagne, David). Some examples of parallel occurrences of imaginary arms can be found in my 2006 paper, available on the Academia depository.

Dear Steen, thank you for your comment and your helpful hints! The lists you refer to are very interesting indeed and important for the question of knowledge formation and transmittal. I share the impression that the number of imaginary arms and the sources including them do increase considerably in the 15th c., though the question remains as to why such an increase did happen in this time and what kind of processes are related to that in the different linguistic, cultural, and political regions.

Dear Aaron, I heartily agree that the processes need investigation, and look forward to see the results of your endeavours. You are probably already aware of the German and French writings on chivalric culture, and of the later work on English gentry by Maurice Keen and others. If not may I suggest these for comparison with the continental ways.

Dear Aaron, a really interesting project. During work on my PhD thesis I encountered quite a few imaginary arms or “Phantasiewappen”, most of them having been invented to provide people having lived in the pre-heraldic era (i.e. one’s ancestors, mostly) with appropiate arms. This being one of the two possible ways, the other being a claim stretching the age of one’s arms, asserting that they originated in a distant past.
People trying to invent imaginary arms for their ancestors was a complex business, as they weren’t completely free in choosing the heraldic design – those arms had to “represent” the ancestor, his (or her) territory, maybe point to an even more ancient past, maybe take up elements of the current/contemporary heraldic design etc. etc.
I wish you all the best for your project!

Dear Aaron, thank you for this contribution! I agree that imaginary arms are an interesting topic that deserves to be studied. I have a question concerning the terms that are generally used: are imaginary arms / Phantasiewappen etc the best words do designate such coats of arms? There are, I think, two issues here:

1) Often these arms are not imaginary, or made up. In the case of many historical rulers actual contemporary arms are attributed to them. Calling these arms imaginary can be a bit confusing. Might it be better to use the term attributed coats of arms?

2) But attributed coats of arms, as well as imaginary arms / Phantasiewappen seems to be a modern concept. It often seems that in the Middle Ages people were convinced that these Asian, legendary, historical rulers actually had born these coats of arms (although I am not sure whether this has been studied and supported by evidence yet). Would it be justified to make a distinction between actual and imaginary coats of arms, if such a distinction was absent in the Middle Ages?

I am tempted to say yes, since these coats of arms form an potentially fruitful field of study, especially with regard to mentalities and knowledge. But one has to be careful. As you can see, I am struggling with the terminology myself, and therefore I am interested in your thoughts on this issue.

Dear Elmar, Thanks for your comment! You raised quite principal questions of terminology and I am still reflecting, as I am just at the beginning of my work, on these points too, so I cannot provide definite answers.
Generally, I think that the term “imaginary arms” (if we consider it as a translation of the French “armoiries imaginaires” essentially coined by the héraldique nouvelle) is quite often misunderstood. The adjective “imaginary” does not simply mean “fantastic”/”devised by phantasy” but rather refers, according to the French concept of the “imaginaire”, to ideas, mental pictures, and collective representations being present and effective in a society. Personally, I am rather more skeptical about the term “real arms” (armoiries réelles) and especially about the German terms which lack a conceptual and theoretical embedding, and have, as the “Phantasiewappen”, sometimes a quite negative connotation.
The phenomenon you draw attention to in your first question is quite often subsumed under the category of heraldic flattery but the “imaginary arms” as a term are used in this context too. I agree with you that it might confuse at first glance, but one could say that it actually does not contradict the definition of the “armoiries imaginaires” speaking essentially of attributions. Interestingly, these arms gathered sometimes a momentum of their own and were handed down over the decades and centuries. In this case, it seems to be quite consistent with the actual concept behind the “armoiries imaginaires”.
Coming to the second question: Sure, but are historians not constantly applying modern concepts/categories to structure and analyze in a way people living in the Middle Ages would not have done? But it must certainly be asked whether the concept/category is appropriate to the subject and if it can render valuable scientific findings and new heuristic value. At least in the conceptional understanding shortly outlined above, which is tending in the direction of the history of mentality, this observation of possible contemporary convictions does not really seem contradicting to the “armoiries imaginaire”.
But I think that one should be cautious in opening up a dichotomy “actual – imaginary” which is in my view not necessary.
I have decided to work critically with the existing French term – not least as it is well established in French research. But it does certainly demand a critical revision of the terminology and the way it does influence our mindset and our way of understanding historical phenomena. So I fully agree in the point that one should be careful and reflect on the use of the existing terminology.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Name *

Email *

Website

Follow:

The collaborative blog Heraldica Nova is an initiative of the Dilthey-Project ‘Die Performanz der Wappen’ (University of Münster) which aims to study medieval and early modern heraldry from the perspective of cultural history. Read more ...